PUBLIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION NEWSLETTER

On March 29, 2001, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a landmark decision requiring specific details of a police department table of organization to be in a police ordinance. The Supreme Court recognized that its interpretation of the statutory requirements was both so significant and at the same time so contrary to the then-prevailing interpretation that retroactively applying these requirements would undermine and invalidate a tremendous number of police appointments and promotions across the state. While the New Jersey Supreme Court thus gave its decision only prospective application, the court made no bones about the fact that police appointments and promotions from March 29, 2001 forward are invalid if the municipal police ordinance does not conform to the court’s surprising interpretation of the statutory requirements.

The Reuter decision is a potentially powerful tool for police and fire unions seeking to preserve the structure of their organizations by filling all vacancies. It thus also presents an important pitfall for police and fire administrations to be wary of and protect against when seeking to change the structure of the organization.

Article by Todd J. Gelfand September 2005 PUBLIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION NEWSLETTER Health Check: Enabling Ordinance On March 29, 2001, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a landmark decision requiring specific details of a police department table of organization to be in a police ordinance. The Supreme Court recognized that its interpretation of the statutory requirements was both so significant and at the same time so contrary to the thenprevailing interpretation that retroactively applying these requirements would undermine and invalidate a tremendous number of police appointments and promotions across the state. While the New Jersey Supreme Court thus gave its decision only prospective application, the court made no bones about the fact that police appointments and promotions from March 29, 2001 forward are invalid if the municipal police ordinance does not conform to the court’s surprising interpretation of the statutory requirements. The case was Reuter v. Borough of Fort Lee. As factual background, Fort Lee had a fairly typical police ordinance provision allowing for the number of positions in the police force to be changed from time to time by municipal resolution. In fact, many municipalities have had police ordinances that allow for changes in the composition of the police force simply by leaving positions intentionally vacant upon retirements, promotions, etc., even without so much as a formal resolution. Fort Lee’s police ordinance, however, created only the position of police chief, and gave the mayor and council discretion to create and fill whatever other positions in the line of comment they deemed necessary by resolution. Apparently, the ordinance further provided that vacancy in the position of Police Chief would only be open to a Deputy Police Chief. The council wanted a Captain Jeremiah O’Sullivan to be named to the vacant police chief position, so, by resolution, council first created an additional Deputy Chief position and appointed O’Sullivan to it. Three months later the council appointed O’Sullivan Police Chief. The two apparently pre-existing Deputy Chiefs, John Reuter and Bernard Hart, filed suit challenging O’Sullivan’s appointment to Police Chief. They alleged that O’Sullivan’s appointment as Deputy Chief was invalid because he was appointed by resolution only to a third Deputy Chief position that was never created by ordinance. Since only the Deputy Chiefs were eligible for the Chief position, they argued that O’Sullivan’s appointment as Chief was equally invalid. The Appellate Division agreed, and affirmed the trial court decision returning O’Sullivan to the position of Captain. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed entirely with the reasoning of the Appellate Division and the trial court, but nonetheless decided that O’Sullivan’s appointments to Deputy Chief and then Chief would nonetheless not be invalidated on this basis. Rather, as noted above, the New Jersey Supreme Court noted the decision was contrary to a “long term interpretation of the law,” and held the new interpretation effective “from today [3/29/01] forward...” Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=27e21d6b-45b9-4857-a1df-605c05d352642 Administrative Law Practice on behalf of Police and Fire Municipal Entities and Public Employees September 2005 The basic reasoning of the Appellate Division, adopted also by the New Jersey Supreme Court, is based upon recognition of the different procedural requirements and safeguards when municipal action is required by ordinance vs. by resolution. Particularly, the Appellate Division noted that public notice and participation are the two important interests embodied in the requirements that ordinances go through two readings, publication and a hearing before passage. Resolutions, by contrast, may be introduced and passed at the same meeting, and may be passed in minutes without the knowledge of anyone except those present. Turning to an examination of the state statute at issue, it requires that municipalities “shall provide for a line of authority relating to the police function” by ordinance.1 The court explicitly interpreted the term “line of authority” to mean “an organizational chart.” The court also suggested that the organizational chart required to be in an ordinance must not only include whether a department will have the ranks of patrolman, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, inspector, deputy chief, chief of police and possibly others), but the number of each rank to comprise the police force. Some interesting questions were left unresolved by the Reuter decision. For one thing, 1 The statute also provides that the municipality “may . . . provide for the appointment of . . . such members, officers and personnel as shall be deemed necessary. . . [and] fix[ ] their compensation and prescri[be] their powers, functions and duties” by ordinance. The use of the word “may” in this sentence, contrasted with the use of the word “shall” noted above is certainly interesting to consider. It at least suggests that perhaps inclusion of the terms of office and the powers, functions and duties of the officers at the various ranks provided for in the ordinance is discretionary, not mandatory. It would thus seem that these issues could be addressed either by ordinance or by less strictly-circumscribed means such as resolution or perhaps even policies or rules and regulations promulgated by the appropriate authority. the two pre-existing Deputy Chief’s positions held by Reuter and Hart had also never been established by ordinance as would now be required as of March 29, 2001. Rather, the initial two Deputy Chief positions were contained in “the then Fort Lee Police Department Organizational Chart.” The decisions do not reflect whether that Organizational Chart came from a resolution, policy of the appropriate authority, Rules and Regulations promulgated by the appropriate authority, or perhaps the Chart had been merely created and updated from time to time by the previous Police Chiefs. Clearly, however, the two pre-existing Deputy Chief positions were similarly not created by ordinance, and if the situation were analyzed under post-March 29, 2001 applicable law, their tenure in those positions would seem to be equally invalid. The court explicitly noted it was not addressing that issue. Similarly left unaddressed is the question of how detailed the Organizational Chart of the Police Department in the ordinance must be, see fn1 herein. What was addressed and made perfectly clear, however, is that an organizational chart for the police force must be contained in an ordinance, and it must definitely specify the positions and ranks comprising the police force, and the number of people at each rank. It is also clear then that changes can only be effectuated by ordinance. Municipal and police administrations must not make the mistake of assuming their police ordinance meets these requirements, or that somehow it will not matter. If the police ordinance has not been reviewed and amended since March 29, 2001, it is likely to not be in conformity with Reuter. Reuter represented a significant change from what was commonly believed to be necessary for a valid police ordinance. More often than not, before March 29, 2001, police ordinances were enacted giving municipal and/or police administration the flexibility to change the structure and organization of the police force without the formal, technical prerequisites and procedures that come with changing an ordinance. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=27e21d6b-45b9-4857-a1df-605c05d352643 Administrative Law Practice on behalf of Police and Fire Municipal Entities and Public Employees September 2005 History has taught us that this is indeed a sweeping change, and the courts will invalidate promotions and appointments in a municipal police force whose ordinance does not conform to Reuter. The last change this significant was when the statute itself was amended in 1981, requiring municipalities to create and establish their police forces by ordinance. The ordinances were then required to designate an “appropriate authority” and the statute required that the rules and regulations governing a police force be adopted only by that “appropriate authority.” Many municipalities failed to keep up with the changes to the 1981 statute, and lost disciplinary actions against police officers as a result. The Borough of Glassboro in 1985, the Township of Westampton in 1987, and the Township of Hamilton in 1994 all had disciplinary charges against police officers thrown out, merely because they did not properly implement the changes to the police statute, by ordinance, following the 1981 statutory amendments. Even as recently as 1999, the Appellate Division not only threw out disciplinary charges against an Atlantic City Police Sergeant (who was represented by my office) on that basis, but in fact held that the Atlantic City Police Department had not been properly created and established since 1981. The effects on police administrations that have failed to re-evaluate their police ordinances and comply with Reuter since March 29, 2001 can be just as serious as these effects on municipalities that failed to enact proper ordinances after the 1981 statutory amendments. The New Jersey Supreme Court was clear in Reuter that appointments and promotions to positions that do not exist by an ordinance with a sufficiently detailed, set table of organization will be invalidated. When openings arise in a police force by way of retirement, dismissals or otherwise, officers and/or their unions can bring suit to make sure these positions are filled, as the positions can only be abolished by ordinance, and not by being left vacant intentionally. Simply put, every municipality with a police force should review its ordinance for compliance with Reuter. Every municipality with a police force should also review its ordinance for comparison with the actual, existing structure and table of organization periodically, and, if differences exist, either change the ordinance (by ordinance) to match the structure of the department, or change the structure of the department to match the ordinance. The Reuter decision is a potentially powerful tool for police and fire unions seeking to preserve the structure of their organizations by filling all vacancies. It thus also presents an important pitfall for police and fire administrations to be wary of and protect against when seeking to change the structure of the organization. Article by Todd J. Gelfand, Esquire. Mr. Gelfand is an associate in the law firm. The firm’s administrative practice includes local administrative disciplinary proceedings, Department of Personnel matters including all types of civil service appeals, superior court matters related to police and fire administration and public employee discipline cases, as well as appellate matters. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=27e21d6b-45b9-4857-a1df-605c05d35264

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

- hide

Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.